Before the board was started, North called the Director and consulted the Director whether the board should be scrapped as all four players at his table have heard the comment by the previous pair who played the board. "6♥ makes, 7♦X would have been a good sacrifice." The Director considered the matter to be under L16C2c and allowed the board to be played and later decided to adjust the result to A5050.
Please comment on my wisdom or stupidity.
My considerations were: (North is a lot more experienced than his partner and opponents and a trained Director.)
1. North claimed that he bid 4♥ as he is worried about "using UI", and as there was no 5♦ attempted sacrifice, which might have been influenced by the UI, the slam was missed as a result. He insisted that the ruling should have been A6060 as they were no way at fault and he should not have been put in such a dilemma that whatever he does will make him guilty of some UI incident.
2. I agree that pertaining to the incident of hearing the extra information he was no way at fault. However, I would say that he and his partner are primarily responsible for their own cards. I was considering letting the result stand.
3. I am also not sure whether UI from other sources are really "used" the same way as UI from partner, after all, L16B1a is highly specific in mentioning "partner" on many occasions.
4. I do realize however that there does not seem to be any law reference that directly justifies my exact adjusted result A5050, though it seems suspiciously close to 12C1b wild or gambling action. In fact, what is the law reference that says players are to answer for their own actions at all times?